Dune prequels; really that bad?

I was browsing though my Locus (sci-fi mag for the uninitiated) and noticed that the Butlerian Jihad currently tops the bestseller list in the paperback category, with no less than twice as many sales as the next book. Dune:Machine Crusade towers over it's competition in teh hardcover category. The only one who's keeping up with the Dune prequels is Terry Brooks and his Shannara series.

Which raises the question, can so many people really be wrong? Note that I am specifically not launching a defense of the book, and am oh so well aware of the fact that populairty is far too often no indicator of quality, but I am interested to hear in people's experiences with the Dune prequels, how they manage on their own and how they compare with the original series.
"Away now, Shadowfax! Run, greatheart

I enjoyed the first series of Dune prequels; not as much as real Herbert, but still they were passable.

However, the new 'Legends of Dune' series is far weaker. I am currently midway through the 'Machine Crusade' and even notwithstanding the deficiencies in the quality of the story itself (which aren't so bad compared to some writers), the series shows a frustrating lack of imagination. One of Herbert's great talents was to grasp the way that history worked - i.e. a gradual evolutionary process of disprit inter-related strands. These new books by contrast seem to have ignored this insight: the pre-familiar Dune universe appears relativly underdeveloped (conceptually) and the development of more recognisable features of the society (from Glowglobes to Bene Gesserit) proceeds all too quickly. There seems to be a sense in these books that almost every unique creation of Herberts has to be explained within this relativly short time line (and thereby denuded of all mystery and sense of history), which is surely a sad thing for the Dune series as a whole. Moreover, as these books seem to be prepatory for Dune VII I worry that the two usurpers are about to ruin Dune both at the start and end of the cycle (although in the case of Dune VII they will be working more directly from Herberts's original notes).

To summate then, in my view the Prequels were good (by sci-fi if not Dune standards); the new 'Legends' series is sub-standard and we can but hope that the forth-coming Dune VII will outdo any of the foregoing.

Having looked at the other threads, I am still not convinced. The first one was so good, I don't know if I could cope with the let down if the others (sequels/prequels whatever) are not up to scratch - it has happened so many times in the past! Perhaps watching the mini series is the more viable option.....hmm...

On a side note, Shezahd, Christopher Tolkien did NOT write the History of Middle Earth books... they're 100% Tolkien himself (JRR that is)... they were simply edited and published by his son, who sometimes writes comments and other analyses, but all the Middle Earth content is strictly JRR.

If you had never read the original Dune novels, you would love these books. I read them, and then read the prequels, and still found them to be quite enjoyable, though. Most of the people who dislike the Dune prequels think that Herbert and Anderson are trying to ruin Frank's vision and all this stuff. A lot of people just can't appreciate it because Dune is the greatest novel of all time and can't be rivaled.